Should Dual Cores Require Dual Licenses? 425
sebFlyte writes "The multi-core debate continues. HP and Intel have laid into Oracle and (to a lesser extent) BEA over their their treatment of multi-core processers. Oracle's argument that 'a core is a CPU and therefore you should pay us all your money' isn't a popular one, it would seem. What does Oracle's stubbornness imply for the industry as a whole, with multicore chips coming to the fore so strongly?"
You asked a questions so my answer is.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Competition (Score:5, Insightful)
Kinda torn (Score:2, Insightful)
on one hand, a person with a dual core chip is likely to get slightly better performance than 2 actual chips.
on the other, if everything goes to dual core, then we've just handed Oracle, MS, et al. double (or more?) profits on their products. Support costs will remain somewhat constant, so wtf?
I dunno... it's a hard nut to crack
As long as.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Central Processing Unit.
Theres no 's' on the end.
Open Letters, Briefings, etc. (Score:5, Insightful)
HP and Intel should manage their own business, and leave Oracle to mismanage theirs.
What have we come to that companies write open letters to themselves, using public opinion to try to damage competitors or enhance their own position... and the public eats it up and supports it?
Intel, this is your problem. Deal with it without whining to the public... or you'll look like whiners. It isn't like the wining is going to actually help your case anyway.
MS.. (Score:2, Insightful)
There _Are_ Other DBMS's (Score:5, Insightful)
> industry as a whole, with multicore chips coming
> to the fore so strongly?"
PostgreSQL is coming along nicely...
Let's make a deal, if the price is right. (Score:3, Insightful)
Oracle License is Painful (Score:5, Insightful)
My sense of things, though, is that to move from one database technology to another is a massive undertaking. You fight with these tools so much that you become an expert with them... warts and all... and even if someone else has a better and cheaper mouse-trap, mission-critical stuff just refuses to budge off the old workhorse.
The dual-core problem is just a new flavor of the Oracle licensing problem. It will be interesting to see if they budge.
Re:Sad (Score:2, Insightful)
Essentially open source. Go join the consortium, and start building your own processor. Of course, you need your own Fab plant, engineers, material supply chains, circuit designers...
Oh, what do you know? Open source doesn't fix everything after all!
Re:MS.. (Score:1, Insightful)
Switching costs for desktop task are cheaper than for database processing. I work in corporate banking and a single application for a single banking business line contains a zillion lines of code of PL/SQL. If all I have to do to switch is forming my users to OpenOffice, the price of dual license for Windows will make switching to Linux VERY interesting.
But if I need to migrate ALL my softwares AND data in another database (if a database company who does not charge per core but per CPU ever exists), I won't be happy but I will have to pay.
Microsoft is actually setting the example. Heh. (Score:1, Insightful)
Unless Oracle matches this policy, they run the risk of losing sales to Microsoft's SQLServer product.
I'm not usually an MS fanboy, but I'm rooting for them this time.
Cell processors (Score:5, Insightful)
Due to greed and stagnancy, Oracle has maybe 5 years left before the "smell of rot" is all pervasive. When MySQL and PostgreSQL become so common place (think Apache on the net today vs. Netscape's web server from the mid to late '90s) [netcraft.com], Oracle will be lucky to be a million dollar company.
If you doubt my words, think of what MySQL and PostgreSQL were just a year ago. Then think "What will they be like with 5 more YEARS of development?". Then realize that they are free to everyone and you'll see why Oracle is doomed.
Of course, Microsoft will claim it as their victory, but you, me and everyone else not running SQL Server will know better.
Simple solution to simple problem (Score:1, Insightful)
Specifically, there are a number of alternatives for Oracle, both freeware and commercial. I haven't spec'ed Oracle for a client deployment in years thanks to DB2/Sybase/Postgresql.
Cheers,
Re:Kinda torn (Score:5, Insightful)
But then, a person with a bigger L1 cache will also get better performance, so why not charge based on transistor count?
Why not just charge based on MFLOPS or MIPS? Why not charge based on actual transaction throughput?
This amounts to nothing more than a quick-and-easy way to try to sneak through a regular doubling of their pricing structure. Realistically, we can expect Moore's law to start applying to number of cores, rather than number of transistors. So, in 20 years, will Larry expect their customers to pay more than the GDP of most smaller industrialized nations? In 30 years, will he let us use Oracle if we just make him "Emperor Ellison I, monarch of Earth and the Lunar Colonies"?
No. In a few years, Oracle will simply reverse this policy, and go back to their current approach of striking the corporate rock with a big stick until it runs out of blood. That, or they will cease to exist. In the meantime... Anyone currently dependant on Oracle would do well to start migrating now, because, of the three possible outcomes (no change; no per-core pricing; going under), two mean you'll need to change eventually, and the remaining option means you'll at least get raped over the short-term.
Re:Riiiight! (Score:4, Insightful)
thus, logic states that it's no harder to switch than to upgrade...
Re:Riiiight! (Score:3, Insightful)
Not really. Even now many tasks have no GPL solution. 3D cad is a big one.
Agree, or agree not. There is no should. (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly (potentially)...
The original question was, "Should Dual Cores Require Dual Licenses?"
There is no should or shouldn't.
A contract is an agreement between two parties.
One sets forward their terms. The other agrees, steps away, or offers ammended terms for consideration. A license is essentially just a representation of that.
"Should" a dual core require dual licenses? There is no should. Oracle are allowed to consider it essential to them and for them to walk away if they don't get their way - and potential users are allowed to consider it too high a cost and walk away if they don't get their way too. Or they can come to an agreement.
Inevitably, one of three things happen:
Customers walk away, Oracle reconsiders its stance.
Customers suck it up, deciding it's still worth it, if less so. Oracle continues.
Oracle loses overall share but profits per customer are higher, thus they're willing to continue with fewer, more valuable customers.
From Oracle's perspective, why should customers halve their license fees by simply upgrading to dual cores? What happens in a few years when Intel has 8 core CPUs? Do they only get 1/8th revenues? As Oracle sees it, they're right.
From the customer's perspective, all they did was upgrade their hardware with a single piece. As they see it, they're right.
In the end, there's not really the notion of right or wrong. Just two different views. Ultimately, equilibrium will likely settle it somewhere in the middle.
Re:There _Are_ Other DBMS's (Score:3, Insightful)
In a few years, using PostgreSQL won't be the cheap option, any more than Linux is now the cheap option. There is no point using Oracle if PostgreSQL has all the features and is reliable, and you can get support for it.
Re:There _Are_ Other DBMS's (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Agree, or agree not. There is no should. (Score:1, Insightful)
The original question was, "Should Dual Cores Require Dual Licenses?"
There is no should or shouldn't.
Sure there is, can't you see it? It's part of the question up for discussion
As Oracle sees it, they're right.
As they see it, they're right.
In the end, there's not really the notion of right or wrong.
With your type of thinking, we should not have Slashdot, or any open forum for discussion. Everything that is, is. Everything that is not, is not.
This all seems rather ignorant to me.
Discussing is to see different people's views on the topic at hand. There always is a should or shouldn't. If you remove that, then there is no discussion.
If you simply say, "The contract says blahblahblah so it is", then there is no discussion. The question isn't what is in the contact, but what it should be. Whatever reasons you rationalize as to why it should or shouldn't is up to you, that's why it's an open forum...Your 'Insightful' comment does nothing but inhibit the conversation. Clearly if the contact says they have to pay, they have to pay. But the question is whether or not they should have to. (read:read the question).
As far as the quesion goes, I can't see why you have to pay more for using an additional processor. Do you have to pay more when increasing RAM? Overclocking your CPU? The number of users ultimately stays the same and the size of the DBs wouldn't change, this is what licensing should be focused around, IMHO.
Re:Oracle License is Painful (Score:3, Insightful)
I think their licensing is pretty rational, actually. It's the same way car companies sell cars - they quote you a huge list price, and then let you bargain them down to a more reasonable level.
Once, while buying a car, the salesman quoted me the sticker price for a car I was interested in. I laughed and said "Nobody pays the sticker price!" He looked really serious for a minute and said "you'd be surprised". Turns out lots of folks just won't bargain, and the car companies know it. So they pay, what, 20-40% extra?
One of my previous employers bought Oracle licenses at 10% of list. We made more money reselling Oracle to our customers than we made selling our product.
Let them quote whatever they want. They'll come down if they have to.
Who cares how they charge! (Score:3, Insightful)
The rest of us that would never shelled out for oracle anyways will keep on using postgresql, to our advantage.
This goes beyond simple enterprise databases. Look at spatial databases. In Canada, it costs roughly $50,000 plus $13,000 per year in maintenance fees for an ArcSDE / Oracle based spatial database license.
Or, it costs nothing but your time if you choose to make an equally powerful, easier to use spatial database using PostGIS.
So, you can buy your spatial database, or you can have a database plus (at least in the purchase year) pay for a dedicated person to play with it for you.
Oracle can say - and charge - whatever they like. (Score:1, Insightful)
If the Powers That Be insist upon Oracle databases, that's their call; all they have to do is fork out whatever Oracle is demanding (whether it be per CPU, per core, per RAM chip, firstborn son, etc.) If the price Oracle demands is too high, they'll start looking at alternatives: DB2, PostgreSQL, SQL Server being the main ones that spring to mind.
Oracle needs to be careful that they don't price themselves out of the market. Because the simple fact of the matter is, there comes a point where people are simply unwilling to pay the price demanded, and at that point, you'll see a massive exodus to the competition. For some, that price is higher than others. Only the marketplace will determine what is, and is not, reasonable; and that's ultimately the way it should be.
Re:Kinda torn (Score:4, Insightful)
This comes down to cores having to wait for access to resources, etc.
I think you are not saying what you think you are saying. In the case of Intel they should be nearly identical, since Intel shares the memory bu between two processors whether the cores are on one piece of silicon or two. AMD wil be an interesting study since a dual opteron can have memory for each processor, and each has its own connection to the peripherals. Weras all other thngs being equal a dual core Opteron would have only one memory bus for both cores and share a connection to the peripherals.
You can get equivalent performance to a dual core Sun Sparc IV 1.25Ghz with a single 1.8Ghz Fujitsu Sparc processor.
This suggests you are thinking single core higher clock vs two processors (dual core or separate). Which can often be true depending on the software.
Re:Processers? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:There _Are_ Other DBMS's (Score:3, Insightful)
Because, especially in the Windows world, people who package using such installers apparently cannot understand that EULAs are not mandatory.
It drives me crazy when I see the GPL text and the "I Agree" button on the installer for a GPL'd program. The GPL is a copyright and patent license, NOT a license to use the program.
This leads to confusion with people thinking the GPL, which is backed by statute and case law relevent to concept of copyright. Is somehow related to ELUAs, which perport to be contracts, whilst failing to conform to the basic paramaters of a contract.
You have the right to use it, whether you agree or not.
Regardless of if "you" are an individual or a truely transnational corporation operating everywhere on the planet.
The conditions of the GPL apply if you were to supply copies of the program in question to a third parties. Something you may only do with the permission of the copyright holder(s) anyway. You always have the option of negotiating a specific licence with applicable copyright holders. Copyright licences make things easier for both holders and third parties who wish to distribute copies.
Re:Makes more sense than per chip or per core (Score:3, Insightful)
lets dissect that...
CPU= central processing unit
GPU= graphics processing unit
Say, if i have dual athlon mobo, how can both the processors be central processing units in the system ? Clearly, one is but a co-processor, and thus i shouldnt pay for extra licences ?
A system can, by the very definition of the term, only have one central processing unit, all the DSPs, cores and controllers are but co-processing units.
Or does it come down to processing unit being turing-complete or not ? Well, newer graphics cores already are turing-complete
Typical response... (Score:1, Insightful)
Is this karma-whoring or is it a genuine knee-jerk response of the type that gives open-source supporters a bad name?
You know, there might be good reasons for people to prefer Oracle to open source solutions, in spite of its inherent disadvantages. Perhaps it would be better to acknowledge them, and/or provide a persuasive argument in favor of your preferred open-source solution.
But I'll tell you now; open source may have numerous advantages, but Oracle is still way more powerful than current open-source offerings.
That may change, but perhaps you should direct your efforts into improving them, rather than spouting black-and-white zealotry.
Re:Makes more sense than per chip or per core (Score:1, Insightful)
When discussing dual processor systems, the style used is not a Master/Slave relationship. One CPU does not control the other. Instead they are both capable of managing all resources. They are given IDs (e.g. 0, 1) and the operating decides which processor executes what. In high-end systems, the OS is tolerant to CPUs dying or being switched in/out on the fly.
Oracle is justified in calling a dual-core CPU equivelant to a dual SMP system. Two identical CPUs are put on silicon, with each having its own interface to memory. Architecturally, these dual-core CPUs are identical to a single-core. The only difference is that some designs allow shared cache (e.g. Power4), but Intel/AMDs don't. The performance of a dual-core or dual processor system is identical when you factor out minor design choices.
It's One Device (Score:3, Insightful)
Giving us the business... (Score:3, Insightful)
That said, it is the purpose of people, the citizenry, the public, you and me, to make certain that when a company attempts to make a profit by paving your and/or anybody elses' ass over, we step up and say 'NO". We do this through legal channels, we do this through regulatory bodies, and we do this with our pocket books.
In the not too distant future, a machine at the center of your home, or your weareble technology, will have a reconfigurable processor perfectly capable of spinning up dozens or even hundreds of cores. One or more may be running proprietary software that some company can claim they should be getting paid for. The point is, that only one customer, is receiving value from their singular operation of a product they purchased for their own personal use.
I'm terribly sad this makes it more complicated for HP and Oracle to charge time against service, but to suggest that they should be getting paid by the core is rediculous... as a response, I'd suggest that if they want to charge by the core, that as users we resond by paying only for the process time alotted. By paying them only so many femtocents per Core cycle, they would suddenly see a significant drop in profits, and would see the err of their ways, hopefully shutting up and thanking their lucky stars that they still have a product and some semblance of a customer base (keep screwing with your patrons and see what that does to your long term profits...)
I don't blame them for money grubbing... it's not pretty, but it's kind of expected. I do blame them for shear stupidity... what makes them think people will just assume the position and take what it is they're trying to sell us... for shame...
Genda
Re:Typical response... (Score:2, Insightful)